The business of “We”

(Feb 17/11)

I tried treating all people equally. It didn’t work. I tried being as much of an individual as possible. That didn’t work either. What IS all of this “we” business, anyway? Who are “we” and in whose opinion?

To some, “we” are a means by which to differentiate ourselves from those we do not like, agree with or understand. To others, “we” can be a strong, united, common entity worth fighting for. “We” will often be considered members of a partnership or brotherhood, many of which also have enemy organizations with their own definition of “we”.

And then there are the lowest common denominator definitions: that which “we” use to classify and categorize each other, like animals.

(genus – kingdom – family – species – class/order)

LANGUAGE, LOCATION, CULTURE, COLOUR, SHAPE AND SIZE…

“We” who feel compelled to judge ourselves based on our senses often do so ferociously and with precision accuracy. This is especially true of that which is least understood and most unusual.

But “we” who feel accepted are generally accepting of ourselves and as such, have a much broader approach to who ELSE “we” may include. The argument becomes “why shouldn’t we?” … instead of why should, and who should and who should not.